The mind attempts to grasp objects for happiness & in looking for the existential truth, but the real Truth is not in any particular object, but in the non-grasping action of the mind. But things become tricky, then, because seekers cannot rest content merely with the mind being in a non-grasping *state* -- such a state comes and goes. The practice must persist until the state is recognized as a reflection of eternal truth.
Akilesh Ayyar interviewed by Souljourns
I’m interviewed on the spiritual path by Ted Henry of the Souljourns Youtube channel. This interview happened in the summer of 2021.
Akilesh Ayyar interviewed by Awakening Together
The spiritual organization Awakening Together interviewed Akilesh in a live satsang on November 21, 2021. Topics included surrender, self-inquiry, obstacles seekers encounter, and more.
Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Seven
Continued from Verse Twenty-Six
27. The State of non-emergence of 'I' is the state of being THAT. Without questing for that State of the non-emergence of 'I' and attaining It, how can one accomplish one's own extinction, from which the 'I' does not revive? Without that attainment how is it possible to abide in one's true State, where one is THAT?
Commentary: The non-emergence of the (false, egoic) I is the Self, which is also known as “THAT” because it cannot be described. It is the indescribable beyond. Only when there is no I is there no other, and only when there is no other is there nothing to seek or to fear. This is the state of perfection.
This state appears to be blocked because of the egoic identification with the body and mind. The identification is sustained by continuous frenzied labor towards the desires and fears that the body and mind desire.
The non-emergence of the I is possible in temporary ways: in deep sleep, by controlling the breath, or by some other means of profound concentration in an activity. But the only permanent way is to seek the source of the I through self-inquiry (a continuous chasing of the I which seems to experience and do) or surrender (ignoring all thought except the thought of surrender, and relaxing).
Then it vanishes and the one who thought themselves bound finds themselves having always been free. That is Self-abidance. This is the true state, meaning it is the state that in fact is always the case; there is only a misconception that it isn’t, and when that is inquired into, even that misconception is found not to have existed.
At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
What is the real nature of thought in nonduality? It's like the Stroop Test.
The Stroop Test in psychology is a test that shows different facets of an experience can each interfere with the processing of the other. I actually stated it slightly wrong in the video: I said that it was about reading a word like "red" when it was written in a color like blue or yellow. Actually it is about identifying the color of that word despite the fact that it reads "red." But anyhow, these are simply flip sides of a coin.
The point in either case is that the nondual view of thought is to recognize it as being like a piece of abstract art, like being color, like being like the play of light... not inherently meaningful. But the difficulty is that thought seems to REFER to things, seems to be telling a story. So the sensation quality of thought is hard to perceive, because the mind is directed to what the thought is talking about.
Surrender and inquiry are in a way about recognizing this sensation quality of thought... and that even the "referential meaning" of it -- what the thought is talking about -- is merely part of this sensation. This sensation is the expression of the Self.
Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Six
Continued from Verse Twenty-Five
26. If the ego is, everything else also is. If the ego is not, nothing else is. Indeed, the ego is all. Therefore the enquiry as to what this ego is, is the only way of giving up everything.
Commentary: Everything is a series of things. Things are objects with boundaries. Boundaries are always set in relation to an observer, the one who feels that “I am.” Thinking “I am” means thinking “I am not those things.”
This “I am” thought is the ego. It is inevitably mixed with the belief that “I am the body and the mind” and various other things. In order to think “I am,” the ego has to implicitly create a sense of what it is, and what it is not. That sense is based on the idea that one is a doing, experiencing person.
Only then can you cognize other things. You perceive them in relationship to this person that you think you are. So everything is only possible if there is an ego, a sense of separation, that then creates a world of names and forms. If that sense of separation falls, the boundary-based world cannot stand. All our language and concepts depend on the egoic distinction of an out there as opposed to an in here, on a not-me as opposed to a me.
So the only way to really give up everything is to look this egoic illusion in the face. It cannot sustain itself, because the I which is observing everything is not actually that which it seems to be. It seems to be a solid core. It is quite clear that if one looks, though, that the observer is not a solid core. It has no boundaries. It isn’t an object.
But if it isn’t an object, then it isn’t “in here,” and if it isn’t “in here,” then the things that are out there aren’t really out there, since they are only out there relative to something that is in here. Names and forms fall, concepts fall, language falls. Everything then is given up, in the sense that it is was never there to begin with.
Inquiry into the ego means to turn attention continuously towards the I, that is, towards whatever is noticing experience. The cardinal rule of self-inquiry is that you cannot be what you are aware of; that in order to be aware of something, there has to be a distance between you and it.
When one tries to do self-inquiry and find the I, one tends to land on another object of experience. This again cannot be you. Then you try to turn towards whatever is noticing that. On and on the inquiry goes this way, until it is seen that more and more of what you thought you were is actually a series of objects. This is then recognized as not you. Pursued to its end, everything is given up.
At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Five
Continued from Verse Twenty-Four
25. It comes into being equipped with a form, and as long as it retains a form it endures. Having a form, it feeds and grows big. But if you investigate it, this evil spirit, which has no form of its own, relinquishes its grip on form and takes to flight.
Commentary: The form or vehicle of the ego is the mind-body. This mind-body assumes an identity and relationships, and then has desires and fears based on that identity and relationships. This entangles it in more and more thought, and this thought increasingly obscures the fact that this ego is merely an imaginary thing. The movement of thought seems to create the sense that the ego is doing things, much like, as is stated in an ancient scripture, a torch being whirled around seems to create a circle of light. A more modern metaphor might be how two stereo speakers create an illusion of a three-dimensional soundstage and a band.
If this ego is investigated — namely, by slowing the thoughts down and trying to find just who is watching the whole show — it suddenly recedes, because the illusion cannot be sustained if you see its background. The illusion is based on separation, and the separation is a trick of misdirection. As long as you’re consumed by desires and fears, then mind moves endlessly, and doesn’t actually investigate who the “I” is who has all of these desires and fears. Start looking, and suddenly it becomes elusive who the I is. The I, which watches, and which cannot be what is watched, cannot seem to find or locate itself. That immediately starts to break up the desires and fears, since they are all premised on the idea that I want this and I fear that. But if you can’t find yourself, then obviously those desires and fears then become less compelling.
But stopping there is not enough. The one who cannot find the I is itself the I that is being looked for. That I must be pursued relentlessly, and as it is pursued, concentration, peace, and the desire for liberation generally increase and attachments tend to decrease, though there may be spectacular bouts of fear and passion as the usual identity struggles to hold on to itself.
This goes on until the Background of the Mind is finally and inevitably noticed, and the conceit that the mind-body is independent is no longer sustainable.
At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Four
Continued from Verse Twenty-Three
24. This inert body does not say 'I'. Reality-Consciousness does not emerge. Between the two, and limited to the measure of the body, something emerges as 'I'. It is this that is known as Chit-jada-granthi (the knot between the Conscious and the inert), and also as bondage, soul, subtle-body, ego, samsara, mind, and so forth.
Commentary: The body, being insentient, cannot call itself the I any more than the words on a page can speak themselves. And the Self, being beyond thought, does not change or act, and cannot and does not call itself by any name. The light of the Self, then, is said to reflect upon the body (or the body-mind), and in the reflection of that body in the light of the Self — is said to be the ego which arises.
This is much like the imaginary character that is created when a reader (analogous to the Self) reads a book (analogous to the body). In the interaction between reader and book arises an imaginary person who is called the character. This character does not actually do, feel, or think anything, but is only imagined to do so.
This is called the knot that ties consciousness and matter, or the ego. This imaginary character is the one who seems to seek spiritual truth, and at the end of its quest, will be dissolved away by the the knowledge of its own imaginary nature against the background of Self.
At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
Surrender as the vigilant refusal to ever un-relax
I often describe surrender as ignoring all thought except the thought of surrender, and relaxing. These two instructions really boil down to the same thing. Avoiding absorption in thought is precisely about not being pulled into reacting using what feels like your willpower.
Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Three
Continued from Verse Twenty-Two
23. The body does not say 'I'. No one will argue that even in deep sleep the 'I' ceases to exist. Once the 'I' emerges, all else emerges. With a keen mind enquire whence this 'I' emerges.
Commentary: The body, being insentient, cannot actually believe anything, any more than rocks can believe anything. So “I“ am not rooted in the body. And even in deep sleep, we have a rudimentary sense of our existence, which is why we know, when we wake up, that we slept, and didn’t just cease to exist from the moment we fell asleep at night to when we opened our eyes the next morning. So “I“ exist even in deep sleep.
We should note here that the I that remains the same between deep sleep and waking is the true I, whereas all that we have access to in the waking state is a modification of that true I, namely, the waking I, which gives a sense of division and separation. That is the I we are forced to look for, and when we do, we will find that it is merely a reflection and modification of the true I, which watches over all the states of consciousness (waking, dreaming, and deep sleep), and can either be experienced with or without a sense of duality and separation. The senses of duality or the lack thereof — which we call being conscious or unconscious, respectively — are merely thoughts.
At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.